Messages

I think it's an admirable first job!  Everybody's gotta start somewhere and starting out as a dishwasher/bussboy is a great way to gain an appreciation for those kind of jobs.  It's a big change of schedule for sure and will be exaughsting at first, but you'll get the hang of it.

I remember a few years back I was working 2 full time jobs.  8am-4pm at one, then 6pm-2am at the other.  I was a zombie for the first month or two but then adjusted to it.  You really will get the hang of it!

Hang in there man and congrats on joining the working force!

[DO NOT DO THAT AGAIN]

Sorry for digging up this thread, but how soon until we can get an English release?

What in the name of all that is holy are you doing??

Good sweet lord in heaven above it never ceases to amaze me.

DO NOT DO THAT AGAIN

I'm locking this (since it's been dead for 6 freakin' months)

Kosovo War 1999. President Clinton went through NATO completely bypassing any need for Congressional approval. And the president CAN go to war for (might be inaccurate by a few days/weeks) 60 days before needing approval from Congress. The President has plenty of "magic buttons".

The president cannot, as I understand it, declare a "war" without congressional approval.  He can take military action (as was done in Kosovo, Somalia, and Iraq in the 90s) without congressional approval.  But to declare war officially he needs congressional approval.  Now, as with anything, there are levels of political bullshit and wrangling that can be done to skirt the constitution.  However, in the case of the current Iraq war, congress DID grant it's approval.

You really need to be more careful with what you say.

Or what? You'll invade him? lol

So you're generalizing that I, as an American, must be war happy?  It's interesting that the entire point of my posts in this thread keeps being proven over and over again in this thread ...

[War Powers Resolution]

I've just red 2000 bodies this morning in an Argentina's newspaper. Blame them.

I'm not blaming anybody.  If you're going to make a claim like that you should point to the source.

The war did not start for the wrong reasons, no matter what the people were told, Bush started the war knowing why, the people didnt know, but they didnt start it, and the army have to do what they are told, even if they knew the reason was economic, (or not).
The war started for Bush's reasons, so the decision wrong/right goes only to him.

The U.S. President cannot simply start a war.  It must be approved by Congress, the representatives of the people.  Congress approved the war in Iraq due to faulty information they were given from several different intelligence agencies.  I'm not denying that Bush lied to us.  I'm not denying that he made the decision to go to war.  But he doesn't have a magic button he could push and we suddenly find ourselves in a war.  To believe otherwise is either incredible ignorance, or simple naivety.

After the Korean and Vietnam wars congress enacted the "War Powers Resolution" which basically forces the president to get congressional approval to start a war.  Though the UN didn't support the invasion of Iraq, the US Congress did grant approval to Bush.

I dont know what do you mean with "lumping", but yes I am generalizing, because that's how I see most of the US people, maybe Im wrong.

Yes, you are.  It's ignorant and just plain wrong to generalize or "lump".  By lumping I meant you were taking all (or most) of U.S. citizens and making judgements on them all based on the actions of a few newsmakers.

"according to my friend" is not a very reliable source, even if he was in Iraq, soldiers act by orders, act like pawns for the government, and are constantly lied

You're generalizing again.  I would trust "my friend" with my life.  He upholds the ideals that I think all US soldiers should have.  He was not a pawn, doesn't lie, and I believe what he says more than any news agency or internet debate.

is VERY hard to believeafter watching missiles going down in the middle of a highly populated city (etc.), that Iraq soldiers killed 50% of the civilians.

Where did you see this video?  Al Jazeera?

I'm tired to see on TV all the tricks USA used in Irak, hiring actors, filming people burning and old currency (old money), putting small crowds celebrating, these things may be debatable, or you can deny them, except the one about the money burning, wich is filmed, wich was reported in US newschannels, and wich was probed to be money that was not in currency long before the war started. And Im talking about several documentals made by USA people

Please link to some source for all this trickery and hiring of actors you speak of.

I was misunderstood, Im not saying USA objectives was to kill civilians, Im just saying they didnt give a shit about it, they are targeting them because thats unavoidable since Bush took the decision to invade Irak. And by USA I mean Bush.

They are NOT targetting civilians ... for the 10th time.  And I can assure you they DO give a shit about it.  You really need to be more careful with what you say.

It was a rage comparision, to be honest, but he has the potential, isnt he heartless too?, I dont think he cant sleep for killing all this people in Irak. Im gonna be EXTREMELY honest here, is not that I cry for the Irak deaths either, or that I care TOO much about it, I just cant believe there's someone alive capable of doing that and, even worse, with so much power. I think his death would be beneficial for the world. This is what makes me angry, that a cold blooded killer like Bush is still alive, and being supported for some USA people.

Odd ... I wonder if that feeling of hatred and animosity you have towards Bush is the same feeling he has/had toward Saddam and the Iraqi people?

Hopefully he wont be re-elected next time..

He cannot be elected to a third term.  So we're ALL lucky in that regard.

[some websites]

The U.S. invaded Iraq (albeit under false pretense) with a military objective.  In any military action there are always civilian losses (the term is "casualties of war").  This is an unavoidable part of war no matter how smart our bombs are.  I don't like it, but it's a fact.  So yes, in the advance of the military objective(s) a lot of Iraqi civilians have been killed.

So you're OK with that, people getting killed for the good economics of your country, the most poweful nation is entitled to take what they need, that's life, right?. And if the other nation have an evil terrorist leader, even better.
Besides my point is not talking about the unavoidable parts of war, is why the war started, and you know it was for economic reasons.

Actually I never said I was okay with it.  Just that it was a fact of war, which it is.

U.S IS targeting the civilians, there are more civilians dead than anything else, and they knew this was going to happen, so technically, they targeted them. Unavoidable part of war, sure.

You are wrong again.  I suggest you do a little research before spouting out your "facts" so freely.  According to some websites the total number of Iraqi deaths (civilian and non-civilian) numbers as high as 733,854.  Following the link I posted earlier numbering only civilian deaths at 58,056.  That's a military (non-civilian) count of 675,798 deaths.  Far more military deaths than civilians.  Not to mention that more than 50% (according to my friend (who was a Marine on the ground in Iraq)) of the civilian deaths were caused by other Iraqis, not U.S. soldiers.

I understand you're mad about the situation ... but think before you speak.  The US is NOT targetting civilians, as much as you'd like to think they are, they aren't.

And less than 2000 deaths for USA army

Please research first: American Body Count is now over 3000.

And the war never started for the wrong reasons, you think he didnt know what he was doing from the very beginning?, You know he did.

Actually I don't.  And nor do you.  You don't (can't possibly) know what the man was thinking.  You can speculate, but you can't know.  And the war DID start for the wrong reasons.  We the people were told one thing (which turned out to be false) and that's why we went to war.  Hidden motives aside, that's why we went to war.

The necessary means the most easy way, no matter who has to die. That's what wars are for.

I don't believe that's what wars are for.

I was talking in general, I should have said "most US people", because that's what I think, is hard to express properly in english.

Talking in general makes it worse.  Not only are you "lumping" but you're "generalizing" too?

Or better, replace the file with a fake one containing a text file, stating that whoever paid to download this file is being ripped off, and ask them to contact you and tell you where they found the link if not on your own site.

Fantastic idea!  I'm doing that right now!

I checked the logs ... the problem is that particular file has been downloaded over 10,000 times and I don't really want to sort through it all!  However ... I will know when I upload the new file and see if it gets any new downloads from this point on.

[Brief History]

Yes I think it was "silly" to say they killed the same amount of people, but is that the point??

Yes, that's exactly the point.

The U.S. invaded Iraq (albeit under false pretense) with a military objective.  In any military action there are always civilian losses (the term is "casualties of war").  This is an unavoidable part of war no matter how smart our bombs are.  I don't like it, but it's a fact.  So yes, in the advance of the military objective(s) a lot of Iraqi civilians have been killed.

However, the important thing to realize here is that the U.S. is not targetting the civilians.  Saddam was deliberatly and cold-bloodedly targetting his own people.  He killed them by the thousands for no other reason than he disliked them.  Here is a Brief History of Saddam and his rise to power.  One of the most chilling videos I've seen is watching the calling out  of members of his own government (in front of the rest) and watching as they were taken out and shot in the head while he laughed and smoked cigars.

They are both murderers, and one of them is still alive, give him some time..

Time to what?  Die?  Time gets us all eventually ...

So is Bush better than Saddam Hussein for killing less people?,

Not for the number, but for the reasons yes.  I'm not saying Bush is a good person but he doesn't sit in the white house planning chemical attacks on the people of Montana.  There IS a difference.

Saddam Hussein killed his own people?! xD, does that makes him more evil, Bush is a better person because he killed people from Irak?, a poor country noone gives a sh#~  and without war power?..

Yes.  The brutal and deliberate targetting of your own civilian populace is far worse than the regrettable civilian deaths as the result of a publically declared war (even if for the war was started for the wrong reasons).

Yes, OF COURSE, because they are not his own people, and USA needed some petroleum, is that so bad?. What a nice president, so patriotic. I'd like to see USA attacking Japan now if there is some political problems..Actually I wouldnt.

"War is a continuation of politics by other means." - Carl von Clausewitz

While there is some debate over what Clausewitz meant by that, the fundemental (and obvious) point, I think, is that wars are almost always fought for political reasons.  (I have much deeper theories on this, but I won't go into that now)

The U.S. is, sadly, completely and totally dependent on oil.  The middle east has an absolute monopoly of the world's oil right now.  So we are forced to keep our influence there.  It's just a sad fact of global politics.  Sure there might be hotspots in other parts of the globe where the military might of the US could "save the day" but it doesn't benefit the U.S. politically to do so, thus, they'll continue to be ignored.  As much as we dislike it, we the people have very little say in the matter.  The U.S. isn't unique in the practice of this, just the current "bully" that everybody loves to pick on.

There are not instances of wrong in the U.S army doing, it is all wrong, do you HONESTLY think USA attacked Irak for LIBERATION?, or because they made a mistake about them having Nuclear weapons?. Why would they attack the whole country, and why would they shoot at their press.

I'm not an expert on the middle east by any stretch of the imagination ... but it doesn't take a PHD to realize that as long as the middle east controls the world's oil supply that the nations (like the U.S.) that are addicted to that oil are going to take steps to ensure we get the lion's share.  The welfare of the nation depends on that.  While I don't doubt (in the slightest) that Bush's cabinet is firmly in the pockets of big oil and their main motivation may well be for their own monetary gain, it doesn't change the fact that any sovereign nation (super power) that wishes to remain so will do what is necessary to accomplish this.

I'm more worried about Bush terrorism than Irak's.

That's an opinion you're entitled to.  I'm not to happy with Bush either and while it's fun to call him a terrorist it's a matter of semantics really.  He's not hi-jacking civilian planes and crashing them into civilian targets.  He's not strapping TNT to his body and detonating himself in a restaraunt.  He might be a war-mongering pig ... but a terrorist?  I don't really think so.  Again, just semantics I reckon.

Perhaps you should find your glasses and read the rest of this thread Wink  That's a very "lumping" statement again.

Im not saying you or anyone here buys what CNN shows, Im just saying I don't.
Im glad Saddam Hussein is dead, hopefully Bush will die too.

I was referring to how you lumped all USA people together with the statment "USA people is so patriot they defend what is impossible, they see what they want."  Earlier in this thread I commented on this ignorant habbit people have of "lumping" a people together.

I cant avoid noticing you only answer some parts of my posts, maybe you do agree with some things I said..

Not this time

[edit]

Does anybody know of a way to find out where a game is being downloaded from?  I'm not going to pay to find out ...

I'm curious to know if they're linking to my server (stealing my bandwidth) should anybody actually download my game from their site.  I mean ... if they're charging the money for the "service" and then using MY bandwidth for the download I'm not too happy about that.

edit - either way ... I changed the file name on my server and edited the game's entry on the AGS games page just in case.  If any of you are worried about this ... I'd suggest doing the same thing!

edit2 - Thanks Ishmael!  I'm checking that right now!

[Saddam's Body Count]

Bush killed the same amount of people than Saddam Hussein.

I'm not sure where you got that from either ... Saddam was/is responsible for millions of deaths of his own people.  Yes civilians have been killed in the U.S. invasion ... but nowhere near that number.  Both of these websites are somewhat sensational so I take their information at face value only but some quick google searches will turn up similar findings:

Saddam's Body Count
The number of civilians reported killed by Saddam
Min 1.26 million Max 2 million

Iraq Body Count
The number of civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq (not just by American weapons)
Min 52,473  Max 58,056

Again I can't vouch for the reliability of these websites ... but I found several others that report like data.

I'm not justifying the civilian deaths caused by the US invasion.  I just find it silly to say that "Bush killed the same amount of people than Saddam Hussein" when that simply isn't the case.  Secondary we aren't targetting them as Saddam did.  Nor are we gassing them wholesale with chemical weapons.  Or making their families watch as they are slowly tortured and killed.  Or any of that.  I'm sure there are instances of "wrong" doing by the US soldiers but they are the exception, not the rule.

I havent been everywhere, I sure havent been buying whatever CNN showed to the world, I think USA people is so patriot they defend what is impossible, they see what they want.

Perhaps you should find your glasses and read the rest of this thread   That's a very "lumping" statement again.

... second of all, the propaganda they do by putting irak people supporting them, that's so fake it hurts, people buy what they see, the war winners write history.

Ummmm ... I have several friends who served in Iraq who might strongly disagree with you on that regard.  I'm not taking the side of the mass-media (whom I openly chastise on a regular basis) but I trust the word of my friends who said that flocks of people thanked them on a daily basis for what they did/were doing there.

I would agree that the reasons we were given to justify the start of the war have proven false and we shouldn't have been lied to in the first place.  And perhaps it's reached a point where there is no way out of the situation in Iraq.  But to make a statement like that seems silly unless you've been there or know somebody that has.  If not ... it sounds like you're repeating something a 19 year old college kid blurted out thinking he actually knows anything about the world.

Did you all see how many people were celebrating the dead of Saddam Hussein?, 50, maybe 60?.

Ummmmm² ... so you were EVERY where in the world (at the same time) when Saddam was hung and counted only 50-60 people?  Can you teach me that trick?  That'd be handy for sure!

I'm hoping you're making a joke here?

I don't have a problem with a slight "re-imagining" of Roger.  I would have known who it was even if the title of the thread didn't mention Space Quest.

Over-all he looks pretty good to me.  As ProgZ suggested the contrast needs some work.  I'd also suggest moving the arms away from the body a bit.  He looks a little like the sleeves are attached to the body of the shirt

Yeah, I was gonna bring that up, but I thought it was a bit too much. But it's my point exactly - a lone madman won't get far, or anywhere. He needs support. He won't get to power without a lot of support.

And as you say - it happens. The trouble is, for instance, the way Hitler gave the world a nasty image of the German people. Sounding familiar? History repeats itself, indeed. And all things must pass.

It's not how many people you know ... it's who you know that's important.  We now have a sitting president who more than 1/2 the voters didn't vote for.  He obviously knew the right people.

And yes, people shouldn't have a bad opinion of Germans because of Hitler.  It's basically the same thing here.  I'd like to think people could actually learn from the past.  Yes, obviously, Hitler was "bad" ... but since we learned afterwards that not all Germans were ideological murderous Nazis shouldn't we now, in this day and age, realize that not all Americans are war mongering big-oil lackeys?

But *you* in the plural, the Americans, pretty much have to live with it, because when we're talking collectively... well, all things must pass.

I see what you're saying ... However, I don't think the average American should have to live with the ignorance of others who form opinions based solely off the American government.  To my way of thinking that simply isn't right.  I don't think that kind of ignorance should be tolerated in any form from anybody.

You are correct in that there is very little *we* can do to change this ignorance ... but that doesn't mean we should roll over and take it either.

Comparing Bush to these people creates a very flimsy case. Rather compare him to people who are actually in relatively the same consequences, like the new Il Duce, Berlusconi or the overwhelming support of Le Pen in the last French presidential election.

I wasn't trying to "compare" Bush to them ... just simply pointing out the fact that sometimes a "bad" person(s) gains the power seat and it's ignorant to assume a nation's people all carbon copies of their leader(s).

I'm already kicking myself for getting involved, but I must object. Again, nothing against you personally, just to inform.

On that point, I'm in total agreement

People from the outside should be understanding enough to realize it, Darth, but their "default" stance, the one they're almost expected to take from their outsider's view, is "They've got a democracy, and they keep on saying how good it is, so somewhere along the line they must have supported this government and are as guilty as said government is". And if you say to those people that it's not so, they'll reply that in that case the system is flawed somewhere, and it's a damn big flaw if it allows something like this to happen.

People thought Hitler was okay at first ...

Stalin ...

Julius Ceasar ...

History repeats itself.  Sure the people may have supported it at some point.  That's how it happens.  Promise one thing or project a certain "image" to gain the power, then abuse it once you have it.  Time and again this happens and there's really no way to prevent that. (or just cheat the system like our current president did)

No, it's not fair, but it's perfectly logical, makes perfect sense, and like every other situation like this it stinks and people just have to live with it. Some people will understand, others won't.

I couldn't disagree with that more!!

I certainly won't "live with" people thinking I'm one way because of incomplete facts and speculation based on the actions of those who govern my nation.  If somebody makes a blanket statement (which includes me) because of my government I will inform them (as I did in this thread) that it's not proper to do so.

I could find a flaw in any government of any nation on the globe and quickly come to some assumption about a person from that nation based off that.  No government is perfect and I'd like to think (especially here on the AGS boards) that most would realize this and not do the "lumping" in the first place.

But to say that I must live with it?  Nah ... just don't agree with that at all!

I'd like to see the stats on how much money (if any) they are actually making off of this.

It would make FAR more sense to me if they did that same site with the downloads for free and put Google ads on there or something similar.  I will always click an ad or 2 from a website that gives me something I was looking for.  To support them.

As I said, I'm not gonna get into an argument here. I wasn't specifically directing that towards you personally. It's just something I've noticed from said population, having traveled and lived around the globe (including 4 years in said country). Your remark just brought about the observation. I guess our posts both had the same point.

Maybe I'm missing your point then

I must confess I'm a tad confused ... wouldn't all people who are not Americans be considered "non-Americans"?  What am I missing?  I wasn't lumping the rest of the world into one category as a bad thing (or wasn't meaning too ... that'd be slightly hypocritical) it's just that, technically, the rest of the non-American world are non-Americans?

I don't lump all americans together, but I do think a large precentage of them are simply apathetic to what the role of the last political Superpower should be in the world.

I don't blame americans for voting Bush into two terms of office. I blame the Democratic party for not stepping up to the plate, for being politically weak twice in a row and for not being able to convince the american public that there might be an alternative to the War on Terror, and an alternative to US soldiers and their allies dying in foreign countries for a cause nobody can agree on.

America was built by people of all nationalities, and founded on the idea that every man is equal. It should be a country where everybody has a right to speak out against injustice, regardless of religion or creed.

I don't hate America. I just don't like what it has become.

Again though ... I think you're throwing us all under the same umbrella.  As far as I'm concerned American's didn't vote Bush into office twice.  The first time was all fucked up (I firmly believe it was fixed, duh?) and the second time he lost the popular vote and still got voted in due to some antiquated bullshit called the electoral college.  That's only the third time in our history that that's happened.  Should never happen even 1 time.  That's not "by the people" to my way of thinking.

I know quite a lot of people ... and VERY few of them voted for (or would vote for) Bush.  A lot of them are damn close to taking up arms against him because they are so against what he's doing to our country.  And I live in Florida where our governor is the President's brother and most people I know STILL feel this way.

I understand people's distaste for our President and our Government ... but please, stop thinking that we're all like that just because they govern us.  That's a true injustice to the American people.

[edit]

So yes, it is very different if you were to lump the rest of the world together as non-Americans to us lumping together the people in your particular country.

Perhaps you missed my point?  I wasn't talking about the rest of the world vs. the US.  I was saying that if I made a comment that all Germans were Nazis because of Hitler ... something like that.  I'd be lumping all Germans together unfairly.  In that regard it's NO different from non-Americans assuming that all Americans are like our government. edit - Thanks DG

As DG just pointed out ... I really think the American people had the "wool" pulled over their eyes for a long time.  And I'm really hoping for a change soon.  I don't like the path we're currently on.

The American mind is so corrupted.

I'm not 100% sure exactly what you meant by that ... but I'm sick and tired of the rest of the world lumping all Americans under the same umbrella.  Just because our President is destroying our country and our mass media exploits that fact doesn't make us all war-mongering capitilist pigs, I assure you.

If I were to make an ignorant statement lumping all of a people [non Americans] together based off the actions of a few of them; I, as an American, would be hammered down for saying it.  It's no different when a non-American does that to the American people.

As for Saddam ... I don't really care.  Once they handed him over to the Iraqis they could have executed him or locked him in a cell for the rest of his life, makes no difference to me as long as he's not calling the shots anymore.  I don't really see how him being detained or dead is really going to change things but I'm not on the ground there, I can't know that.

Ever thus to tryants I suppose.

www.google.com

Do all backgrounds of the game look like the first screenshot? (I ask because menu screens (as mentioned in the rules) don't count as 1 of the 2 needed screenshots)  If there are other screenshots not the same as the first screen, please post promptly.

I have a mySpace account ... but the sloppy-ass design of the site clashes with my design-sense and I just can't get down with it.  Everything is jumbled and out of alignment.  Even messing with the code it still looks sloppy.

I like the idea of it ... just not the execution.

As a result I never use the thing.